New geometry charts available

[tc]

I just noticed Riv has posted new geo charts with the new bikes represented.

https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry

Tom

[iamkeith]

Interesting. Joe appaloosa geometry seems to have changed.

[Garth]

It seems reach/stack is absent ..... that to me is very useful for comparisons sake with other models.
I'd very much appreciate it returning 😀

[Belopsky]

Any more hints about the N. AHH ?

[phil k]

I thought I remembered the Joe Appaloosa staying the same.

The Hillborne seems to have gotten a longer top tube. The 51cm used to be a 55cm top tube but now sporting 57cm.

[Bob Lovejoy]

I do agree... It helps me as well, at least I believe it does!

Also, the Sam H. numbers looks off to me.  It shows the 58cm Sam with a 61.5cm (effective?) top tube, the same as the Appaloosa.  That would definitely be a change if correct.

Also, in reference to iamkeith's post... It seems I remember two different sets of geometry numbers around for the Appaloosa.  I just concentrated on the one I thought correct but I did cringe at the potential for confusion.

Bob

Galesburg, IL

[Jonathan D.]

I noticed the Sam TT numbers as well.  That seems a lot longer. Being relatively new to Rivendell bikes I just see the increase of Top Tube and Chain Stays in each new model. 

I am curious, for folks who have ridden both, how does the Sam Hillborne compare to the old Atlantis (not taking account the tire clearance).  Some of the measurements are very similar, and from my understanding, the tubes are pretty stout on the SH.  I am currently most enjoying the Rambouilett I have and would love a stouter version of it.  I am 210, so with carrying a kid and groceries, I know I am well passed the Grant recommended weights. 

[Rod Holland]

I just measured the CC top tube length for my this-year 58cm canti-Sam frameset. I get 58cm. I may be doing it wrong, somehow. But 3.5cm wrong? Dunno...

rod

[iamkeith]

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Bob Lovejoy wrote:

Also, in reference to iamkeith's post... It seems I remember two different sets of geometry numbers around for the Appaloosa.  I just concentrated on the one I thought correct but I did cringe at the potential for confusion.

Bob

Galesburg, IL

Really?!  I never noticed, but I think you might be correct!  That kind of changes everything, depending on which one is/was correct.  I'm getting ready to pay for one of the new MIT Atlanti - the first time they've made one that fits me.  But now it turns out that there may have been a Joe Appaloosa that fit me for some time?!  And it would use my existing 700c wheels?  I'm going to have to ask RBW HQ about this, and figure it out.   If anybody has an Appaloosa and can take some measurements to help figure this out, it would be appreciated - especially a 56. 

Below is a consolidated geometry table, showing what I THOUGHT I was seeing, regarding geometry changes.  The "original" appaloosa is from the page specific to that model.  But, looking back at the all-models geo chart that was just replaced (I have it archived), I see that there WAS a discrepancy all along, as Bob says.  

If the 'new' numbers are correct, then that means that the 55cm Appaloosa (59.8 cm / 6* tt)  is bigger than the 56cm MIT Atlantis (59.0 cm / 6* tt), and both of those are bigger than either the legacy Atlantis (58.5 cm / 2.5* tt) or the 2016 update Atlantis (59.0 cm / 3* tt).  Additionally, the Appaloosa should feel even bigger than those numbers indicate, because the  steeper head tube angle means that the handlebars wouldn't reach back toward the rider as much.  The "old" 55cm Appaloosa had a 58.3 cm / 6* tt.

[By "bigger," I mean longer top tube and, presumably, taller stack height.]

I'm kind of thinking that the 'new' / 'all-geo' Appaloosa numbers must be wrong, but who knows.   It had seemed to me that the new MIT Atlantis sizes were intentionally chosen to fit BETWEEN the 'old' Appaloosa tt sizes, but maybe I was wrong. The new catalog and other comments from John and Grant DO make a big point of saying that the only difference is the wheel size.  

Maybe it's a difference between actual and effective top tubes?  But my recollection is that the 6* models have ALWAYS specified ett.

I'm so confused.

[iamkeith]

In my above analysis, I meant to say that the 55cm Appaloosa appears to be bigger than the 56 cm MIT Atlantis, and that both of those are in turn bigger than either the 58cm legacy Atlantis or the 59cm, 2016 MUSA Atlantis.

[Bob Lovejoy]

I have a 58cm Appaloosa and from my basic measurements, I am going to say that the new listings (on the updated frame geometry page) for it seem correct (61.5 tt, 64.5 front center, 53cm chain stays).

The actual page for the Appaloosa frame shows a chart with different numbers (59.7 tt) but I believe that is actual/physical top tube length and not the effective/level length, taking into account the sloping top tube..  That seems to me the discrepancy, at least with the Appaloosa numbers.  I could be wrong but I think that there were some, way back when, that took those numbers from the Appaloosa page, assumed top tube length as stated was the effective length and made some decisions that, well, did not always work out.

That is about the only question I can help answer though!  But I really am curious about the Sam numbers.  I suspect the new ones are off, though I guess it could be speculated that the new AHH becomes the drop bar, road bike, with the Sam going back to its swept/upright bar roots.  The Appaloosa and the new Atlantis?  I can only see them as different approaches to the same goal, and may the better bike win... though no real winners and losers.  Both great bikes!

Bob

[iamkeith]

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:47:45 AM UTC-6, Bob Lovejoy wrote:

The actual page for the Appaloosa frame shows a chart with different numbers (59.7 tt) but I believe that is actual/physical top tube length and not the effective/level length, taking into account the sloping top tube..  That seems to me the discrepancy, at least with the Appaloosa numbers.  

I too thought that might be the explanation, but it wouldn't explain the disparity with the front-center numbers.  Thanks for measuring and reporting, though.

[dougP]

The first chart is very useful.  Measure your PBH & scan across the models  for your size.  Nice presentation.

dougP

[Brent P]

I have a Sam, Joe and Atlantis in the stable (lucky guy!) so I pulled out my spreadsheet. Here's what I found looking at my old vs listed new:

62 Appaloosa (2017) - no changes to new version

62 Sam (2017, non-canti) - new version has 1 cm more top tube, 3 cm more on chainstay. Only changes., 

64 Atlantis (2017 MUSA) - this is tougher as there's not a MIT 64. So comparing my 64 to available 62, the new version has 3 cm more top tube, 72 to a 71.5 on seat and head, and 6.5 cm more length on chainstay. Fork offset went from 4.5cm to 5.4cm. Standover is 1cm more on MIT 62.

So as I look at it, my Appaloosa is almost identical to a new MIT Atlantis. I enjoy the difference in length between my MUSA Atlantis and Appaloosa, and each is comfortable for different rides and reasons. So I'm glad to have the old 'short' Atlantis around yet. Variety is good!

I do wish my Sam had the longer chainstays of the new, but it's minor quibble. I keep Sam setup as my dropbar, road tire bike anyways.

Aren't we lucky to have so many options!

[Bob Lovejoy]

Brent,

Thanks for doing that!  I think the Sam numbers in the new chart were changed after the initial posting, as the 58cm Sam had a listed ETT of 61.5 (I think).  That has been changed to 60, still a bit longer than the 59cm listed previously but I have no reason to believe it wrong.

And, yes, you are a lucky guy!  I have two Riv's, an Appaloosa and a Cheviot, but still with Hillborne and/or Atlantis aspirations.

Thanks again for the report and the measuring.

Bob

[James Warren]

Also worth noting that the 64 Atlanti changed over the years. Mine from 2001 has a 62 cm TT. Later on that went to 60 cm on the Toyo ones. (Those are lengths before adjusting for TT upslope of 2.5 degrees.)

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Surlyprof]

Love that they color coded each bike by their commonly used paint color. Fun and easier to use.

John

[Adam in Indiana]

Anyone else notice that the new Homer has more tire clearance than a canti Sam? Or do you think that's a typo? I don't recall Tektro 559's clearing a 55mm...

Also, anyone remember what the chainstay length on the previous Sam generation was?

[Bob Lovejoy]

I do think there are are typos and/or oddities in the geometry charts, though, who knows, maybe with certain center pull brakes 55mm is possible.  I think you are certainly right about the Tektro sidepulls though.  I get the impression that more goes into the recommended PBH/sizing chart than the actual geometry chart numbers.  I have not been mislead when using Riv's PBH recommendations but going deeper into the geometry numbers is not always the fun or even useful thing one imagines.

For reference, and maybe it is still there in the current mix, but here is the geometry chart from 2017:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170602082329/https://www.rivbike.com/pages/geometry

As far as really previous Sam geometries go, I cannot find the chart now but I believe top tubes were relatively longer in the v1's, that to better work with swept/upright bars.

Bob

[dougP]

There have been on-going subtle variations.  I tend to focus on the 58 cm Atlantis since that's what I ride.  In the current chart, the gray one with the old geos shows chainstays for a 58 cm Atlantis at 45.5 cm, which is what my '03 has.  But in the May '17 chart, the clock in at 47 cm.  I believe these would have been Waterford.  Now they're up to 53 cm.  So at least 3 variations. 

There could be similar slight differences on other models.  Evolution happens. 

dougP

[James Warren]

There have always been subtle variations. Your story, Doug, mirrors what I said about top tubes on the 64’s: 62cm long in 2001. 60 cm long in 2007.

And yes, Hillbornes too: the very earliest green ones with cantis had longer TT’s than the sidepull/canti oranges that followed them in 2010.

I’ve bought a few Rivs since 2001, and in my experience, the rides of the later ones tend to be better. I trust their geometry tweaks.

-Jim W.

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Max S]

Look at the Front-Center dimension on the 58 cm Sam – clearly a typo. Also, the maximum tire size on Sam being 700x46, whereas on Homer 700x56 has got to be wrong... Good thing folks are flagging this – hopefully Riv can do a correction? 

Now, for the functional differences between Homer, Sam, and Atlantis – increasing tire size and load capacity?.. 

- Max "when did I ever start paying attention to details?" in A2

[Bill Lindsay]

Max asked:  "Now, for the functional differences between Homer, Sam, and Atlantis – increasing tire size and load capacity?.. "

Homer and Sam are functionally equivalent.  There's no great justification for any normal person to have a Homer and a Sam, unless you were going to execute two different builds, like drop bars on one and swept-back on the other. 

Atlantis is definitely more of a knockabout chassis.  I could definitely see somebody setting up a Sam or a Homer as a sporty bike, plus an Atlantis as a touring/loadcarrier. 

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Jonathan D.]

I see the difference between the Sam and the MIT Atlantis. My Joe and Sam ride very differently. What are folks thoughts on the differences between the Toyo Atlantis and the Sam Hillborne besides tire clearance? I would think both have stout tubing and the geometry charts look similar to my layman’s eyes. I love the ride of the Sam and wonder if the Atlantis would provide a similar ride but built better for touring, loaded riding. I am 210 lbs so once loaded down the bike gets heavy quickly.

[James Warren]

This is correct, with many shades of grey between Sporty Bike and Loadcarrier!

And don’t forget, one needs:

Drop Bar Sporty

Swept Back Sporty

Drop Bar Load Carrier

Swept Back Load Carrier

[Joe Bernard]

Then there's my Cheviot, which is a Sportybike Load Carrier Longstay Mixte Cruising Racer!

[tc]

Sorry if this is a duplicate post ... I think I just lost my original. 

Sam and Homer are "country bikes".  New Atlantis and Joe are designed for loaded touring.

Anyway, Max, bottom line per the new Riv catalog is that Homer and Sam are, quote "...95 percent functional clones, and you can pick by color or brake type."  Sam is canti / V, while Homer is side pull.  Sam doesn't offer 650b; Homer's mid sizes offer 650b.

New Atlantis, and Joe, are also very, very similar.  Both offer 650b.  New Atlantis also offers 26" wheel choice in 2 smallest sizes, but no 26" options for Joe.  Both only come with V / canti brake mounts.  Per Riv, "...if this is the type of bike you like, you can truly flip a coin".

Seems strange to offer 2 sets of 2 bikes so much alike, but I'm hoping they all sell really well.  Comes down to color, brake type, and wheel size within each of the 2 sets of bikes. 

Some have asked about the dimensions of the now discontinued side pull Sam.  I have a 2017 58 side pull Sam, and here are the measurements I took off my actual bike:

ETT:             59 (same as 2017 geo chart)   

F/C:            625 (2017 geo chart says 618.5)

Chain stay:   46.3 (2017 geo chart says 45.5)

Stack:        Betw 625-630(*) (2017 geo chart says 645.5)

Reach:      Betw 380-385(*)  (2017 geo chart says 374.5)

(*) Using spirit level and/or plumb bob to line up points; not exact, but I do know the actual is off compared to the 2017 geo chart.

Tom

[Bob Lovejoy]

Hi Tom, 

Thanks for doing those measurements on your Sam!  I have been paying particular attention to stack height on potential frames and knowing the real, even if approximate, figure on a 58cm Sam really helps.  I need to measure my 58cm Joe to see how it figures in.  The 2017 chart shows stack height on a 58cm Sam vs Joe to be about the same but it will be interesting to find out if reality matches spreadsheets or comes close to what you measured.

I am not truly fixated on all of this, as I do just like to ride and forget about it.  That said, I want any build I take on, especially these days, to have a better than even chance of working as I need it to.  I also want to know, at least have some basis to think I know, how one frame might fit differently than another.  Without the chance to actually see and ride the different bikes, out here away from big bike shops, I have to rely on descriptions, comparisons, numbers, intuition and reports from others.   So, yes... thanks!

Bob

Galesburg, IL

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:12:57 PM UTC-5, tc wrote:

...

[RichS]

Confirming what Bill said re: the Sam/Homer comparison. Couple of years ago Grant did a lengthy Blug piece on the Sam. He noted that the two felt so similar he couldn’t tell the difference.

Go with one or the other and you’ll be ready for sporty riding or going on a weekend campout.

OTOH an Atlantis will haul lots more with its firm, planted feel. I’ve had mine (with 46cm chainstays) in roadish mode but prefer it in its current load carrying configuration. My Sam fills the road bike/light load niche quite nicely.

Best,
Richard

[Lester Lammers]

I don't recall where but Grant said the new Atlantis and Joe A. were functional equivalents. So either would be fine with heavier loads.

[tc]

For those debating a smaller or larger size frame if your PBH is on the line between sizes:

I have settled on going with bigger frames, at least as far as Riv goes, if my PBH puts me on the line between sizes.

I personally like less stem and seat post showing.

I like that larger frames get the head tube up.

I naturally lean a bike over upon dismount, so a higher stand over doesn’t feel like I’m compromising my crotch (and no, I’m not mountain biking nor jumping on slippery single track on any of my Riv’s). If you’re looking at a Clem L or a Chev, even that’s no issue.

Larger frames feel more stable. The weight difference is not noticeable, or maybe in addition to the longer frame, the little added weight of it improves the ride.

I don’t do monster steep and long hills every week.

I don’t have to carry my bikes up stairs or fit them on a bus rack.

There is plenty of adjustment in saddle position and stem reach, and handlebar choice, to make a large frame shorter or longer on a Riv such that neither steering nor knee pain becomes an issue.

I know it’s a tough decision and it’s a lot of money. I’ve certainly fretted over it. But I’ve ridden and own 4 different Rivs and they have contributed to my thinking here.

I also believe Grant and Co. will put you on a larger frame if you’re on the line, which should not be taken lightly.

Go big!

Tom

[Rod Holland]

Interesting; just realized my canti-Sam has longer (slightly) chainstays than my Long Haul Trucker...

rod

[jandrews]

Does anyone have the older geo charts for the 1st round of Hillbornes?  I believe they were up on the site until just recently

Thanks

Jason

[James Warren]

They might be in one of the Readers.

--

[Garth]

I'm pretty sure this it, I've saved them over the years ....

[jandrews]

Thanks Garth!

[Bob Lovejoy]

I am pretty sure this is exactly what Garth posted, but I did stumble upon this page today...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gfiN1kOxVrthdc6eScUF9fP5n-BvRBILbBMYiEg5LM4/edit#gid=0

The older 56cm Sam with the 59cm tt always jumped out at me.  There may be other models that have changed over the years as well.

But, for posterity and reference, I wanted to get it into the thread.  Apologies if it has already been mentioned or posted.

Bob